All right. Well, good afternoon everybody. Thank you for being here. Um, this is the third session. Uh, we we did receive PBA's proposals uh here if you want to pass those out. Uh, so
thank you for passing those. And I think overall we've been in agreement on on pretty much everything that almost everything that's been brought forward between the parties this year. Um, and and that's nice. Um in in the last session you did bring forward a proposal
and and so thank you for bringing that. Um I would say that that proposal in normal years would have gotten a deal that day, right? It was I thought it was fair. Um so this year though is different for us.
Um and if you know we're not alone in this. Our districts throughout the state are really struggling right now. um similar to ours where where our enrollment being down so much and it's not just from the scholarships. It's it's our our EOL students took a big
drop this year and all on top of that the state funded us the worst they've funded us in you know at least a decade um including you know with the exception of one year for COVID but we had as funds so nobody really noticed that um
and when when I was made aware of our our financial situation I really didn't expect to have a raise at all and I I my first thought was gosh bargaining is going to be a really difficult year this year and I still think it is. Uh because I think over the past few years, we've had some we we've had some good raises
as as a district. We have I've been here for a long time and and those raises that we were getting were were better than than many other years. We did our best to put everything we had on the table and whenever we could try to improve things. Um and so I do
appreciate all the collaboration that you guys have had throughout negotiation so far. And in terms of our salary proposal, I'm not going to go back and forth with these little offers. Um, you know, little changes. I mean, uh, from from where we were last, uh, I I do have
exactly what I've been authorized to spend and and I'm going to put that on on the table. So, that is, uh, the same thing that we've been authorized to spend for our teachers, which is a 3% uh, package. It's a a one and a half% recurring and a one and a half% onetime
lump sum. and and that's that's my best and final offer on on salary. So, >> okay, similar to last time, we're not surprised because I think that what you guys basically do is a unspoken me too clause. So, what the teachers get, we
get offered. So, I think that we knew that this was coming. Um, but I think that I mean, we wanted to see if that's what you're going to offer us, but it is. So, it's not a surprise. Um, and I just think that we have questions regarding the budget. And I know you say best and final, but I think that we have
to be careful with those things because I know that you have in mind the amount that you want to allocate for the police raises and the bonus, but we actually want to know what that amount is and and how we can use it. So, um, yeah, what
what is that what is that budgeted for that one and a half and one and a half? 1% increase is 281,000. So it would be 281,000 times 1.5
>> and then you're saving what? By making the other one and a half a bonus. >> It's not that we're saving, it's just there are no additional recurring funds available. And so that is going to, you know, potentially eat into the district fund balance. So, that's you're going to that's why I want to align one-time
funds with a one-time bonus >> at at the you know, when we came to our board and and we talked about this um you know, our board or superintendent did push us to go better than what we were funded for. So, there is no savings by going to the the the lumpsum cash.
It's just at the end of the day, it's a 3% package that we're sending people home with, you know, this year, you know, as opposed to just a one and a half. >> I guess what we were wondering is cuz that estimate of what you say the 1% cost includes the FRS amounts
>> and things like that. So with the bonus, some of those costs shouldn't be included with FRS and >> correct. Yeah. >> Yeah. So I I can pull up the what the exact estimate is. Okay. And and I know that the teacher,
it's been said the teacher is the tail that wags the dog, but I just think that the reality is the 1% costs 10 million for the teachers, but that's not what it costs for the law enforcement. They're a much smaller unit. They're the only unit of sworn. I know I'm like a broken record every time, but
>> I hear you. So, one thing I I I think I just want to make sure we're all like thinking of when we're we're talking about how much money is left over and stuff like that is is our, you know, what's come up many times is like our size of our budget, right? It's like, oh, they got almost, you know, $6
billion budget, but the size of your budget doesn't really tell you, well, you have because it's larger, you have more money for raises. The it's it's based on the size of our operation, right? Our operation is larger than most districts and that's why it our budget's bigger. Um this year's per student
funding increase was I think what 1.3%. >> 1.3 yes >> 1.3%. Um you know so and and a lot of those that funding that was added offset some of the increases in costs that the
district experiences too. Costs for you know a lot of things that we have to pay for have gone up. we we understand. Um so just because our the budget is bigger doesn't mean that there's more money left over for raises. It's it's all
allocated based on how what our operation size is. And then I think that what we've been wondering too and what the members are wondering if is if the enrollment is down was the capital improvement plan and like those sorts of spending were those scaled back because
the student enrollment is down and there's less growth. Well, there's two different funding buckets and capital funds cannot be used for operating purposes. And the majority of what our capital funding is for, even the sales tax initiatives, is not building new
facilities. It's for just maintaining our existing facilities. You know, just like when when you have your house, you have to make sure that you replace your roof and you paint it and you do all of those things because if you don't continue to properly maintain it, it's going to cost a whole lot more down the
road. So, the capital funding is primarily just for planned maintenance on those facilities. And then in regards to the budget, the budget is actually not going to be going up this year because with the loss of enrollment, we lost $45 million based on changes in the
staffing formula. We're only saving $20 million. The budget that was approved and adopted by the board does not reflect that loss of revenue because we're not going to see that loss in revenue from the Florida Department of Education until most likely January. Um,
so the budget that was adopted does not reflect that reduction in revenue or the resulting loss of the $25 million shortfall. And last time you said you're not really under staff, but if 315 is
not like the actual full complement number, then what do you guys consider the full complement number? >> I'll defer to chief on that. >> Say that again. Last time we were talking about you still have staffing shortages. That's our belief and that's
I think why you guys didn't implement the hiring freeze with the law enforcement. So we were discussing that and if 315 is not like the real full complement number, what would you consider the real full complement number? >> I would really like us to be able to get
to 300. If we could get to 300, I think we'd be very solid. >> Okay. And so all that extra all those extra slots that's you still use those vacancy rates to pay the outside law enforcement officers, right? >> Is that where the dollars come from?
>> No, it's not based on all of the vacancies because there are vacancies that are within the school complement that are school-based officers versus those that are um department-based. U so we would only be looking at those that are school-based officers. And so that I think would be less than than that
complement of of officers if I'm if I'm not mistaken. >> Right. We have a designated number that are positions assigned to the schools themselves. So then the additional that are kind of your your floaters and even the sergeants that kind of fall under that because that's where they were
allocated initially before they became like a true separate entity, they were counted as officers. So that that number all is encompassed in that 300 that I'm looking to try to get to. Right. But what is I guess what are you talking about then Heather? What is the
schoolbased officer number? >> Are you asking how many officers we would want for our schools designated for schools? >> Right. If you're fully staff for schools, >> minimum fully staffing would be one at each school. >> So 182.
>> Okay. >> Plus supervision. >> Okay. I think we have a those are the types of questions we get from our members. And I think that we also want to request current salary numbers and things like that. And what we're going to plan to do is have a member meeting before the next meeting. I know Diane
sent two other dates. So I'll talk to the reps. >> What did you mean by school-based officer verse officer? supervision. >> Those are the ones that are the ones actually assigned to the schools versus those that are the department based
positions. >> But you're not including the sergeants you said, right? Okay. >> And department based, you mean anything outside of the school? >> It would be there's actually we actually have officers. I'll try to help. Um, we have some officers that are not
designated to a specific school. So, it like might be somebody that might be whether it's our CI people, um the the compliance people, that kind of thing. There's positions that are not attached to a school. But our minimum staffing would be that one per school. That's
like our starting point. >> And when we do our budget, do are we budgeting for 300 officers or or not count? Okay. 300 school officers and then outside officers. Are they two different uh line items?
>> You go to that >> there is there are two different job codes that we have within the system um that shows that designates which ones are are budgeted at school sites versus which ones are budgeted within the the department. >> And in previous years though we used I
I'll say we used 315 as as as a budgeted number so we could use that monies for outside agencies. Not all of that money was being used for outside agencies. It was being used to help offset, but I know that not every position was being filled with an outside
>> agency. And we talked about that. You explained that previously, but what are we budgeting for now? And then the leftover is for other logistics, we'll call it. >> He's asking where all that that money
goes. If you're budgeted for 315, I'm not just >> because we don't use outside agencies anymore. >> There there are still outside agencies being used. They've been minimized. They've been Yeah, they're supplementing, but it's not it's not every single vacant position that's being filled.
>> I think he's just asking where all that money goes. If you only have like right now fully staffed around 240 or whatever it is plus the command, where that extra money from the vacancies goes. So we do have school police in a separate internal service fund. Uh so whatever
and then we we charge out and I know that I explained this to the to the group before. We charge out an amount to each of the schools, you know, as if we were contracting with officers. And so all of that in a sense internal revenue
that's generated goes back into that uh school police internal service fund. Uh so within school police there will be uh there is a fund balance within the the school police internal service fund. >> Uh a question um
do you have an average amount of how many teachers per month separate from the job like based on past years? >> We have turnover data. Sure. Would you know what that number is with the teachers >> uh who voluntarily leave the district?
You mean? >> Yeah. Through retirement and the drop, whatever reasons. >> It's it's been I mean, well, if you add in retirement, it's a it's a little bit higher. Um though, and or those who are um involuntary separations, right?
Right. um we're somewhere around 9% I believe but actual voluntary separations by the district by teachers um has been right around 6% a little under it >> per month.
>> No, no, no. Well, it's per per year. We do it per year. >> Per year. Okay. And that's based on approximately 12,000 teachers. >> 13,000. >> 13,000. Okay. And um so and also >> I'd like to add it's significantly lower
than what the the national averages are somewhere around 18%. >> Gotcha. Okay. And and you said there was a hiring freeze >> for teachers. There is not a hiring freeze anymore. Um we we've placed all of our staff, you know, when we realized
our the extent of the enrollment decline and and our situation with our our budget. Um, we had to rightsize our staff to be aligned with our budget. We did that. We didn't lay anybody off. Nobody lost their job as a result, which
was really our number one priority. Um, and then after that though, we still have an operation to run, right? We still have classrooms to run. We've got, you know, uh, other staff members that are essential to our operations. So, those were opened up. However, all
district administrative positions, even school-based administrative positions, continue to be on a hiring hold. So, you know, any any district staff uh in this building or other that are not school related still subject to a hiring hold
um to limit, you know, limit spending wherever possible. Um going into next school year, we're going to take a very close look at our our budget to see how we can adjust our staffing. um so that we can look back and at this year as a a
year that was tough but we moved on from right and and hopefully uh our our mission across the the district is to make sure we do our best to keep our kids get k draw kids back from charters or wherever else they might be going. Um and and that with
that we keep the funding. >> Are you guys still offering the experience credit to the new hires? You are >> that was something. Yeah, that that's why we wanted to put that in. Yeah. So, not just a one-time thing. >> And and there's a big portion of the uh
teachers that are rehires also, correct? Like from substitute to teacher. >> Yeah. I mean, you have people moving from substitute to teacher if they become certified. You've got uh people who separate and maybe come back. Um >> Sure.
And I do have the so the the amount the cost of the 1.5 recurring is 422,700 and the cost of the onetime um uh bonus is 335,000 >> you said 35
335 >> 335 yes >> okay >> I just have a clicky point also here so um so if you layoff ballpark about 216 is the number based on the 6% on 13,000
per year. That's um that's in a sense it's almost like layoffs through attrition. Uh just 10 teachers alone probably saves you about a million bucks. >> You're talking about the >> over but but if they're about like when
people separate from the job entirely. >> So Right. So, but if let's just say we have you know when we when we head into a school year for example I can I can tell you in a second but when when we have turnover right we we then advertise
those jobs and fill it right so uh this year we have hired uh well including transfers 1500 almost 1 1600 teachers um
and that includes your transfers as your moves and stuff like that. But so our our overall teacher vacancy rate right now of at like we have we have a couple different ways to look at vacancies, right? And and one is when in in HR's perspective, a vacancy is something that
you're trying to fill, right? Um in budgeted, it's different. It means that there's a budgeted position that's empty, right? For us, we have about a 1% vacancy rate right now of of teachers, teacher positions that are advertised that we're trying to fill. So, um, I'd
say in the last few years that number dating back to like let's say three, four years ago, that was in the fours, then in the threes, last year in the twos, this year in the one, right? So, it's been going down. Um, >> but I don't know if you if if that answers your question, but we're not
saving any money from from we're not saving as much as you'd think. Like those when you have the turnover, we turn around and and advertise a position and fill it, >> right? And because we're running a classroom out of it, >> a rehire would just cost you the gap in salary, not necessarily. >> Sometimes it could be more. Uh, you
know, with with teachers, we do grant salary um credit for experience as well. Uh we offer up to 25 years of experience. It's something um you know, it's helped us draw people in. >> And the way we budget for teachers is using an average salary. So, and then
there's also the we budget a vacancy rate because we are we're ne I know that we're never going to get to 100% staffing fill rate within the teacher position. So, we budget a vacancy rate. So, that is already it's built into the calculation. So, it's there is no
savings from lap salary and then anything over what that that budgeted vacancy rate is is one time. You cannot guarantee it. You know, it's non-recurring funds like Mr. Kubrick said uh during the pandemic our vacancy rates were the highest during that time
period and we slowly were able to reduce the vacancies. So the same in the teachers, same in the the police area as well and slowly able to each year reduce the the number of vacancies and then when you have to pull out you know to over 230 teacher positions you know that
it completely evaporated whatever you know savings we would have had in lap salary. But again, that's why it's one-time money. You can't It's not something that you can guarantee each year. >> Well, on some level, too, you know, when a top tier teacher retires, you're
replacing them with a entry level teacher. >> That's that's built into the average salary. That's what I'm saying. We don't budget based on actual salaries. We budget based on an an average. And when you budget based on an average, you build in a vacancy rate. You also turn you build in a a turnover rate which is
you're losing people at the high end and you're bringing them in at the lower end. That is all built into our average salary. >> What do you guys have the vacancy rate at for the law enforcement? >> Uh I I don't really measure it. Um I I
can talk with Chief about that and send it to you for sure. >> Yeah, because I think that we're just wondering like the discrepancy between the 182 versus 300. Um I guess do you want to go through the everything else and then we can caucus?
>> Sure. >> So um we added some language. Did you pass out ours? Yeah. Okay. So we added uh the increase to detail. Um $60 and $70. Uh those are effective July
1st. um chief and the team did work on uh section 1712. So if you want to take a read on that and see if that works. I think that's I think we're in agreement on that. But
let me know if we're not is the extra hours worked. That's the same idea of what we proposed. >> What's that? >> The word extra just >> Oh, yes. Okay, I think that looks pretty much
like what we had. >> 1714 just the paid non workday. We're already in agreement on that. Career ladder is just to strike out the joint study committee. Um you could see there our salary adjustment language
um nothing out of the ordinary the 80% that we've discussed and then the sergeant promotion process that all qualifications must be achieved by December 31st the testing year. On the back page, we've got our our new minimum
hourly rates of pay. Minimum maximum hourly rates of pay along with the minimum maximum 12 month salaries and then workers comp. I assume you just want to keep it status quo, >> correct? Um, I just don't see how you can deny them use of their sick leave
bank when they're out to supplement the workers comp pay. >> I'm not an expert on workers comp. I I um >> because it's their own time. So whether it's a workrelated or personal injury, I just I don't see how they can be denied
use of their own leave bank. >> Yeah, our understanding is legally that is an option. Um, and so we have an outside workers comp attorney uh that we work with, >> but it it just I don't even know if the article 18 specifies for when you use
leave, you can use it for your own sick or injury. She's saying she doesn't think that they have to let you use your own sick leave bank, but I just think that article 18 states you can use your sick leave for >> sickness or injury.
Um, >> what is why do you want to not let them use their sick leave bank when they're out? >> Our position on that was to really just stick with the the statutory language. Um, we could just we could look and have some further discussions with their workers comp designate though on that
>> because that's just the floor. >> Understood. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And then the eval I guess that's more of a question for the chief. We just wanted some kind of cut off for if they're out on a workers's comp injury and we thought 90 days was reasonable if
they're only out for 90 days. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm good with that. I think putting it into the contract. There was an anomaly last year, >> right? >> So, it's a a one incident thing and it and I don't even think that it got addressed the way that I don't think it
came out in the end in the wash like it should have because there was an evaluation done. it was just not able to qualify for that 165. I think this new measure is g or this new tool is going to help us to be able to do a a a quicker more regardless of where you're
assigned. If you're assigned to do the work, then you'll get an evaluation for the work that you did. If you're not here 90 days, like if you're in all Okay. >> Yeah. Because I mean they're going to if the majority of the people that are on light duty are doing something here so
we can evaluate their work. It's it's just making it cleaner. But we're evaluating based on a lot of very specific things in the old instrument. And if you don't see them doing that, doesn't mean you got a bad evaluation. You just it wasn't observed. Mhm.
>> So, I I think that that personally I don't think we need to make a change to it at all because I I think it was an anomaly that we're we're trying to correct, but I don't think it's an ongoing thing and it's something that had it been addressed in a timely fashion by the officer, it wouldn't have been an issue at all.
Okay. Um All right. So, we'll caucus and then I think we're in agreement though on article 17 and in 21 we didn't have an issue with your 21. So, >> I have a quick question. Um the the free meals for the for the children. What
does that come out of? >> That comes out of the school food service fund. There is a separate u individual fund similar to what we have with the uh with the school police department. So the revenue generated and the expenses are all within that fund.
Uh but there is a requirement that the district has to fund any shortfall if it were to go into a deficit position. >> Okay. So also in theory since you have 5,500 less students, you're paying for 55 ballpark less meals also potentially.
>> You're also getting revenue >> two or three a day. >> No, but you're also getting less revenue for those 5,500 students. So, we do anticipate that there will most likely be um a shortfall within that fund, but the fund balance that is built up we feel is going to be sufficient. But if
it does get to the point of where it's structurally imbalanced, that is a requirement that it would have to be funded uh through the district general fund. >> Yeah, we absolutely appreciate that you're getting, you know, less funding because there's less students, but there's also less costs. like a lot of
the buses were making two runs because there were way too many students throughout the whole district. So now they're making one run. You know, there's a fuel savings. There's there's a meal savings. There's uh a lot of these kids had specialized ESOL kids and
had um uh uh teachers uh assigned to them. So since a lot of them are gone, there's a cost savings there. There's uh programs you guys had teaching. Some of you said a lot of it had to do with immigration. A lot of the parents didn't speak English. You hired folks to teach
them English. There a lot of them are gone. So, I'm just saying that I wish I honestly in a lot of areas I I wish you were right, but we're looking at losing $45 million and the savings were generated from realigning the the staffing based on our current staffing
models at the school. We're only saving $20 million. We are short $25 million. It's I I like I said, I wish I truly wish you were right, but when in in a case of declining enrollment, it's never going to work out in the scenario that you're saying where we're going to be
saving more because we're losing 100% of the revenue, yet we're not losing 100% of the expenses because think about the kids. We're not just taking all the kids and emptying out of one school and then losing the principal, the assistant principal, the data processor, uh the
treasurer, and you're not losing all of the teachers, you know, because it is based on a a a staffing formula. We do have class- size mandates at the state level, um as a as a school of choice. Um so, you are in times of increasing
enrollment. It's exactly the opposite. we're increasing and we're getting a 100% of the revenue for that student. Yet, we're not It doesn't cost us a 100% of that revenue to be able to service that student. That's why we were able to give higher raises in those years where
we had increasing enrollment. Declining enrollment is a very difficult position to be in because you are losing significantly more. It's costing you a lot more and you're not you're losing 100% of that revenue. I had a question
about the capital plan for the security enhancements. What what mostly are those the security enhancements and projects? >> The security enhancements um it's u BDA project. So you'll know the birectional amplifiers to make sure that there's radio um frequencies within the building
fencing uh the card access uh badges you know we have to continually update all of that security within the the schools. Can you I'm sure can also think of some others. Yeah, there's been a b I mean the uh the switching over the radios the cameras
>> um radios for the schools themselves. There's just they're like big ticket >> larger long-term projects >> that that are that are going to they're not like one hit wonders. They're they're things that are going to be ongoing >> and you have to continually uh refresh because they don't last forever. So we
have them built into the plan um to ensure that we continue to maintain them. So, so based on that number, you said, you know, you took a $45 million hit. Um, you just said, correct me if I'm wrong, um, that it wasn't the same kind
of savings. You only save 20 million. So, you hit in reality, it's only 25 million, not 45. If you save, >> that is what I said that they the we're losing $45 million in revenue. We're only saving 20 million based on staffing changes. So, we're looking at a
shortfall going into next year of 25. Gotcha. Okay. >> Yeah. >> And then that that is not assuming that's that we're going to that enrollment stays flat. If we have another decline in enrollment, it's the same compounding problem, >> right? >> It's a ballpark number. >> When you do projections in the budget
for student uh loss, how how many students do you project every year? Do you project a 500 students loss a year? >> We project enrollment every year. Um there's a very detailed analysis that's performed through the planning department that looks at births, looks
at um new um uh new communities being open, developments that are being open, new schools being open in the area. So we were we projected a decline of only 400 students this year. In addition to the district projection, there's also a state projection. We then have to match
up our projection with the state projection and we were aligned. So it was not only that the district was and not only just in Palm Beach County but statewide where the district was off, the state was al also off quite significantly because we were we were um
uh aligned with having a projected decrease of only 400 students this year with the state. So a reduction of 5,500 was well beyond what we had anticipated. >> We're going to caucus. We have room C and D available.
>> Is that that way? >> Yes. Y I think so. >> All right. So, we talked a lot amongst ourselves and I think there's a lot of information that we are going to email to you for you guys to provide to us so that we'll have it for our member meeting. So, I don't think it's
productive to have a meeting on Tuesday. So, if we can replace it with the labor management meeting, that would be good. And then we'll take that November 18th date. >> November 18th. >> Yeah. For bargaining because I think she offered two, but I have something else. October 30th. So, November 18th works.
>> November 18th. >> It's before Thanksgiving. >> Yeah. I mean, if you have anything else in November, if you have any other dates in November, >> we can take a look >> and and float some dates that might also work where
No, she says she will be okay. >> I'll be at a training. >> Are you here? >> Okay. As long as I have a few of you, >> we can call you. >> Um, >> so that'll probably work, but if you have other November dates, you can email them.
>> Um, >> yeah. And so we're gonna we're going to email some requests for information regarding the numbers and things like that. Um, so for now I guess we can TA articles 17 and 21
and then we'll meet again on 18 and 20. >> Yep. Sounds good to me. >> Okay. >> All right. Okay. >> Thank you all. I appreciate your time today. Thank you.